Could it be that he is battling to get to grips with the understeery tendencies of the Ferrari? That he has battled with getting the tyres into the right operating temperature? The narrower front tyres aren't helping either. These are all issues he has alluded to in the past and simply a better explanation than clutching at motivation straws.

There is evidence this year that his performances increase relative to the car improving for pete sake. There have been a number of races since Spain where Massa was seriously quick in race pace but just hasn't the chance to exploit it due to various circumstances.

Labelling those on the other side of the debate from you as 'fanboys' or 'troll's' or any synonym thereof is just another personal attack. If you have nothing to contribute to the substantive discussion, and only have comments about other members, I suggest that you avoid posting.

Could it be that he is battling to get to grips with the understeery tendencies of the Ferrari? That he has battled with getting the tyres into the right operating temperature? The narrower front tyres aren't helping either. These are all issues he has alluded to in the past and simply a better explanation than clutching at motivation straws.

There is evidence this year that his performances increase relative to the car improving for pete sake. There have been a number of races since Spain where Massa was seriously quick in race pace but just hasn't the chance to exploit it due to various circumstances.

These are the same problems that Alonso's dealing with and all the teams are struggling to understand the tyres. Massa had to deal with problems in 2007, 2008, 2009... the difference is that in those years he dealt with them better than he is now.

I'm glad his performances are improving. He's a nice guy, nearly won a WDC and has come back from a terrible accident. I just wonder if maybe he'd be doing better if he knew he had a shot at the WDC. His current performance vs his prior performance seems to indicate that he needs something more than a paycheck to drive for. Maybe Ferrari should be looking for someone who is content to drive for money, I just can't think of anyone who would, who could outperform Massa.

These are the same problems that Alonso's dealing with and all the teams are struggling to understand the tyres. Massa had to deal with problems in 2007, 2008, 2009... the difference is that in those years he dealt with them better than he is now.

I'm glad his performances are improving. He's a nice guy, nearly won a WDC and has come back from a terrible accident. I just wonder if maybe he'd be doing better if he knew he had a shot at the WDC. His current performance vs his prior performance seems to indicate that he needs something more than a paycheck to drive for. Maybe Ferrari should be looking for someone who is content to drive for money, I just can't think of anyone who would who could outperform Massa.

Do you wonder the same for the other 15 drivers with no chance of becoming WDC?

These are the same problems that Alonso's dealing with and all the teams are struggling to understand the tyres. Massa had to deal with problems in 2007, 2008, 2009... the difference is that in those years he dealt with them better than he is now.

I'm glad his performances are improving. He's a nice guy, nearly won a WDC and has come back from a terrible accident. I just wonder if maybe he'd be doing better if he knew he had a shot at the WDC. His current performance vs his prior performance seems to indicate that he needs something more than a paycheck to drive for. Maybe Ferrari should be looking for someone who is content to drive for money, I just can't think of anyone who would, who could outperform Massa.

You're arguing off the assumption that all drivers are equally adaptable which we know is not the case.

I can think of tons of drivers who have struggled to overcome various issues from year to year.

The number 2 motivation argument seems to be nothing more than a convenient excuse at this point in time in a bid to deter from Massa's shortcomings as a driver. The fact that he is up against one of the best drivers to grace a grand prix circuit just highlights these shortcomings even more. I don't see anybody arguing about his or Barrichello's lack of motivation when they were paired with Schumacher in cars which were the class of the field.

Give Massa a similar car now and he will get the results even if he is not allowed to win.

It's old and has probably been posted before, but topical and dang funny!

@Ferrari2183 the difference when Massa was Schumacher's #2 was that he came to the team as a #2. When paired with Kimi, he had a chance at the WDC and now that's being denied he's not driving like he used to. He is definitely not driving like he did in 2007 and 2008, car or no car.

Maybe a driver coming in as #2 would drive closer to his potential, I just don't see a quality driver being prepared to accept those terms (I can think of plenty of drivers who would, but they are all on a par with Massa, so why bother).

It's old and has probably been posted before, but topical and dang funny!

@Ferrari2183 the difference when Massa was Schumacher's #2 was that he came to the team as a #2. When paired with Kimi, he had a chance at the WDC and now that's being denied he's not driving like he used to. He is definitely not driving like he did in 2007 and 2008, car or no car.

Maybe a driver coming in as #2 would drive closer to his potential, I just don't see a quality driver being prepared to accept those terms (I can think of plenty of drivers who would, but they are all on a par with Massa, so why bother).

I'm sorry but this is just the same old thing... Massa was only once denied a victory and both prior and after that was not in a position to win. Extrapolating the effect of that one race to subsequent seasons makes no sense as we have already established that after Germany 2010 his performances relative to Alonso only increased. That doesn't seem like a driver who is demotivated but rather a driver who was coming to grips with a car that was only getting better and better. It is the same this year.

I will stick to my assessment of giving Massa a car more to his liking and he will get better results.

Maybe a driver coming in as #2 would drive closer to his potential, I just don't see a quality driver being prepared to accept those terms (I can think of plenty of drivers who would, but they are all on a par with Massa, so why bother).

I wonder which driver would reject the seat?

Vettel seems to have an eye on it. Hamilton was probably not the driver Ferrari wants, Button had a contract. Even Kimi has not rejected the seat. Those and Webber all enjoy a seat in one of the better teams on the grid. Now I wonder which driver, who is available and driving for a midfield team, would reject the offer and in which way the others performed no better than Massa.

I may be open to the idea that Massa has a bit of a lack of motivation but I don't buy his results are mostly because of that. And some glimpses of solid work in the last races by him is pretty telling.

I think the #1 policy is a great plan unless you are a middfield car or something. Using Massa's lack of results I think it is not a solid thing to take on to talk bad about the #1 status strategy because I think Massa's problem isn't just about motivation or the car not being to his licking.

Correct. But will Ferrari devote resources to improving Massa's car when their #1 driver's car also need to be developed? Which car gets priority?

Is there a single quote from Massa or anyone within the team that even remotely hints at Massa suffering due to the car being developed solely for Alonso, or the team not listening to Massas demands, or resource drained from his side of the garage in favour of Alonso?

While you're searching, here is an example of the opposite:

Felipe Massa will have a new chassis for the Malaysian Grand Prix as Ferrari tries to get to the bottom of its troubles with its new F1 car.

In a statement on their website Ferrari said: “Work has already begun in the Sepang pits to prepare chassis number 294, which replaces the number 293 and will be used by the Brazilian in the second race of the season.

“This choice was taken to clear up any doubts about the unusual performance of his car during the weekend at Albert Park.”

Massa qualified 16th in Melbourne, a second slower than team mate Fernando Alonso. He failed to finish the race after colliding with Bruno Senna while running 13th.

Ferrari added: “Felipe knows he can count on the team to do everything, both from the technical and the operational point of view, to put him in a better state to show off his talents – even at the cost of extra work in these few days that separate the Australian race from the one in Malaysia.”

Correct. But will Ferrari devote resources to improving Massa's car when their #1 driver's car also need to be developed? Which car gets priority?

They have, even Massa has said many times that the car it's better for him now and he feels more comfortable with it, the team is working hard (or worked) to help Massa and indeed they have helped him but I guess those facts are not convinient for the people that want to prove that Alonso is driving the space rocket and Massa a piece of junk.

Is conjecture a basis for a debate? No. Is everyone aware of that? No. Should the unaware be reminded? Yes?

You get the idea.

Is saying that FA has a No 1 contract a conjecture? Yes. Is saying he doesn't? Yes...and so on.

Is it unreasonable to think that a driver that had a nightmare season under competitive circumstances and literally said that the team should support a 2 X WDC over a rookie and brought with him the backing of a major sponsor, demand No. 1 status to avoid what had happened before? Is it unreasonable to think that the team, knowing (and seeing on their own in the first races of 2010) how their new driver reacts to pressure from a teammate, and given that this driver brought a lot of sponsorship dollars, would chose to over-protect this driver by prematurely assigning No. 1 status? Of course not!

Is it possible that some people disagree with you and Ferrari about backing FA so early in 2010? Is it possible that Massa could have won 2010? Of course! The only fact is that he had a mathematical chance. That he was realistically out of it, THAT is a conjecture.

It seems to me that all the arguments opposing yours are conjectures, while yours are facts.

Is it possible that some people disagree with you and Ferrari about backing FA so early in 2010? Is it possible that Massa could have won 2010? Of course! The only fact is that he had a mathematical chance. That he was realistically out of it, THAT is a conjecture.

It seems to me that all the arguments opposing yours are conjectures, while yours are facts.

Massa having a realistic chance of winning the WDC in 2010 is laughable, if Ferrari had done what people are suggesting and not swapped the positions then people would still be slagging off Ferrari for there stupidity. They can never win with some people.

Any driver that Ferrari hire to replace Massa, no matter how good (and the really good ones won't) will have to accept that they have no chance of being WDC. Maybe they will be better than Massa, but they sure won't be driving like they would if they were gunning for the WDC.

Exactly, that's why none of the top drivers would want to go there (not that they need to) and the good rookies give it 2nd thoughts. The way things are now it's a seat for drivers that want to go back to F1 or older drivers that are ok driving for money only. They may perform better than Massa on their first season but in time their performance will drop to the point of being just adequate or worse. These are race drivers after all. Maybe Ferrari should try a Toro Rosso in this scenario for seat No. 2.

Exactly, that's why none of the top drivers would want to go there (not that they need to) and the good rookies give it 2nd thoughts. The way things are now it's a seat for drivers that want to go back to F1 or older drivers that are ok driving for money only. They may perform better than Massa on their first season but in time their performance will drop to the point of being just adequate or worse. These are race drivers after all. Maybe Ferrari should try a Toro Rosso in this scenario for seat No. 2.

Or you can just admit Alonso is a very good driver and anyone going there knows it he would be a fierce competitor. This whole number 1/2 driver is nonsense and wouldn't actually work unless the number 1 driver is actually the 'faster' better one which Alonso is anyway so I don't see any problem.

Is saying that FA has a No 1 contract a conjecture? Yes. Is saying he doesn't? Yes...and so on.

Okay, back to the basics.

Nobody in here is talking at length and repeatedly about his opinion that Alonso can't possibly have some sort of no.1 status in his contract. I repeat, nobody (as far as I'm aware, feel free to prove me wrong) is raising such claim. Instead, it's you who insists on the opposite being the case, or at least very likely. Apparently based upon... well, I'm still not quite sure what you based it on. You haven't come up with a single strong indication, let alone something like evidence or proof. All you do is demand a right to talk about it, regardless of value, probablity, etc., even ignoring indications to the contrary like Alonso having to fight and losing points against Massa for the first half season of his contract.

At the very least, you should expect to be ridiculed spouting wild claims while refusing to back them up with something more substantial than your opinion base on nothing.

Is it unreasonable to think that a driver that had a nightmare season under competitive circumstances and literally said that the team should support a 2 X WDC over a rookie and brought with him the backing of a major sponsor, demand No. 1 status to avoid what had happened before? Is it unreasonable to think that the team, knowing (and seeing on their own in the first races of 2010) how their new driver reacts to pressure from a teammate, and given that this driver brought a lot of sponsorship dollars, would chose to over-protect this driver by prematurely assigning No. 1 status? Of course not!

Well, given what I bolded in my first paragraph, which is the only indication of substance in this whole case, accidentically one that goes against your theory, it is indeed unreasonable to cling on to it for dear live.

Is it possible that some people disagree with you and Ferrari about backing FA so early in 2010? Is it possible that Massa could have won 2010? Of course! The only fact is that he had a mathematical chance. That he was realistically out of it, THAT is a conjecture.

Yeah, in the sense that it's possible for Karthikeyan to win a race this season. He's got all the mathematical chances in the world, after all. Strangely enough nobody bothers to discuss that possibility at length.

It seems to me that all the arguments opposing yours are conjectures, while yours are facts.

Yeah, in the sense that it's possible for Karthikeyan to win a race this season. He's got all the mathematical chances in the world, after all. Strangely enough nobody bothers to discuss that possibility at length.

You´re going deep into the world of bullshit. Don´t know if you´re serious, hope you´re just joking... just in case:

Karthikeyan isn´t in a car that has proven to be able to be a race winner.

Massa was in a car that has proven to be able to be a WDC challenger, and roughly in the same situation than the other driver, who went leading into the last race.

I just don´t understand how anyone can like that crap, whoever you support. It was shit. Massa and Alonso were close, and there was still a good part of the championship to go.

You´re going deep into the world of bullshit. Don´t know if you´re serious, hope you´re just joking... just in case:

Karthikeyan isn´t in a car that has proven to be able to be a race winner.

Massa was in a car that has proven to be able to be a WDC challenger, and roughly in the same situation than the other driver, who went leading into the last race.

I just don´t understand how anyone can like that crap, whoever you support. It was shit. Massa and Alonso were close, and there was still a good part of the championship to go.

If you still can't see the reason why Ferrari took that decision 2 seasons later on, then I will leave you to think whatever you want to think as its likely you never will, for me it's like trying to explain why the sky is blue.

Apparently 50% thought they should employ team orders around the German GP this year even though both drivers were close in pointsand had a shot at the title. 11% were undecided.

I think your statement should read that 'F1 fans don't like Ferrari team orders'

This is pretty much it. I didn't see the outcry when Webber was told not to attack a struggling Vettel at Silverstone last year or Hamilton and Button told to hold position in Turkey 2010.

It is not the same thing as swapping positions but it essentially robs the chaser of a crack at the win. With all the moral outrage Skinnyguy has displayed I would have thought that for the sake of moral high ground he would have mentioned his disdain at these forms of orders.

This is pretty much it. I didn't see the outcry when Webber was told not to attack a struggling Vettel at Silverstone last year or Hamilton and Button told to hold position in Turkey 2010.

It is not the same thing as swapping positions but it essentially robs the chaser of a crack at the win. With all the moral outrage Skinnyguy has displayed I would have thought that for the sake of moral high ground he would have mentioned his disdain at these forms of orders.

+3

Blatant double standards indeed.

It is perfectly "ok" for teams to have orders as long as:a) Alonso is not the #1 driverb) The team is not Ferrari

Two drivers having the same machinery is a bit different to both drivers having equivalent cars. Drivers have different preferences and strengths. Car is not a separate entity. One tries to maximize the combination (driver+car) that is intricately linked with each other. There is a good chance that one driver loses out when a car is developed to suit the other driver, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

Two drivers having the same machinery is a bit different to both drivers having equivalent cars. Drivers have different preferences and strengths. Car is not a separate entity. One tries to maximize the combination (driver+car) that is intricately linked with each other. There is a good chance that one driver loses out when a car is developed to suit the other driver, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

It's the drivers responsibility to adapt though. If a driver can't adapt and only performs when everything is to his liking, he is worse than another driver who can adapt.

It is perfectly "ok" for teams to have orders as long as:a) Alonso is not the #1 driverb) The team is not Ferrari

What I see are some people employing a different standard;

It is perfectly "ok" for teams to have orders as long as:a) One driver is mathematically out of contention for the WDCb) The team has an open policy concerning this

The problem with reading any word other than 'mathematically' is that we then start talking about degree and what you will see as a fan of the driver benefitting is not the same as what others may see. 'Mathematically' makes it definite instead of subjective and probably divorces it from the reality of day to day team management at a lot of teams.

In Hockenheim 2010 I would agree that realistically Massa was way out of contention and the order (on balance) was appropriate if not at that time legal. I would not expect a fan of Massa to agree with that. I would expect them to point to the possibility of Alonso not finishing the season through injury, or taking a dive in form etc etc as reason for why woolliness doesn't belong in a policy like that. Subjective degree.

The only ones who have double standards are those who might have seriously complained about a team not supporting one driver over the other outside of the mathematical definition, but are here complaining about Ferrari doing it. If you find one, no harm posting a link and pointing it out, rather than making a general complaint about persecution.

I think Ferrari's team orders at Austria 02 were perfectly ok. I think their orders at Hockenheim 10 were perfectly sensible (albeit constrained by a (silly) rule and the lying afterwards was very unattractive). So overall I would describe myself as supportive of those two sets of team orders.

But they are definitely the 2 most extreme examples of team orders in the sport in the past decade by a decent margin. And people react because of that.

I don't particularly agree with that reaction (I think team strategy is, and always has been, part of F1 and I'm glad teams are now free in this regard). But this "people are only upset because it's Ferrari/Alonso" chip on shoulder nonsense is a bit much and fails to recognise the unique (if, IMO, totally justified and sensible) extreme that Ferrari have taken team orders to in the past.

It IS easy to generalize but I wasn't. I corrected the exact member that had a different opinion not even a month ago.The only difference I could see in the two scenarios was the Team. Unless there's something else I've missed?

Quick Edit --> maybe I should have called him out with my first post... I wasn't sure if it was the right thing to do.

But they are definitely the 2 most extreme examples of team orders in the sport in the past decade by a decent margin. And people react because of that.

The Hakkinen - Coulthard switch by McLaren in Australia 1998 and the McLaren Williams inter-team orders in Jerez 1997 rank up there with them too (outside the decade, I know, but not too long before 2002 and definitely precedents).

It looked to me like Ferrari hadn't planned the 2010 switch in advance (i.e. hadn't discussed it fully with Massa) and therefore had to make the message quite obvious, without actually phrasing it in the form of an order (which could have been legally important depending on how the FIA reacted).

Both Massa and Barrichello made their moves obvious, and I think Rubens, in particular, dropped his team in it. He must have known he was going to yield for most of the race, and could have been subtle about it.

Massa and Kimi managed to ensure the correct driver won the 2007 and 2008 Brazilian Grands Prix without being too obvious about it.

It IS easy to generalize but I wasn't. I corrected the exact member that had a different opinion not even a month ago.The only difference I could see in the two scenarios was the Team. Unless there's something else I've missed?

Quick Edit --> maybe I should have called him out with my first post... I wasn't sure if it was the right thing to do.

They should, but they won´t do.

Button downfall afterwards? No. He´s smart and professional, and has moved out of the way for Barrichello early 07 several times without getting mad.

The Hakkinen - Coulthard switch by McLaren in Australia 1998 and the McLaren Williams inter-team orders in Jerez 1997 rank up there with them too (outside the decade, I know, but not too long before 2002 and definitely precedents).

Agree.

Massa and Kimi managed to ensure the correct driver won the 2007 and 2008 Brazilian Grands Prix without being too obvious about it.

As well as the subtlty, the mathmatical certainty of no WDC chance for the second driver made those ones much less extreme IMO.

I think Ferrari's team orders at Austria 02 were perfectly ok. I think their orders at Hockenheim 10 were perfectly sensible (albeit constrained by a (silly) rule and the lying afterwards was very unattractive). So overall I would describe myself as supportive of those two sets of team orders.

But they are definitely the 2 most extreme examples of team orders in the sport in the past decade by a decent margin. And people react because of that.

I don't particularly agree with that reaction (I think team strategy is, and always has been, part of F1 and I'm glad teams are now free in this regard). But this "people are only upset because it's Ferrari/Alonso" chip on shoulder nonsense is a bit much and fails to recognise the unique (if, IMO, totally justified and sensible) extreme that Ferrari have taken team orders to in the past.

But it certainly seems that the moral outrage is only aimed at Ferrari. Look at Skinnyguy's post in the other thread.

If team orders are wrong in the Alonso/Massa situation then it was sure as hell wrong in the Hamilton/Button situation because it effectively meant that Button couldn't have an attempt at reducing his point deficit to Hamilton.

I, personally, have no objection to any team orders but to dismiss the one and ridicule the other, when it is your view that it should be settled on track, is a double standard.

As well as the subtlty, the mathmatical certainty of no WDC chance for the second driver made those ones much less extreme IMO.

True.

Actually, I don't believe anyone thought Barrichello had a WDC shot in 2002. It was more that Schumacher had such a lead that the team orders were unnecessary. With Massa too, I think it is the lost race win rather than the WDC points loss that disappointed his fans the most.